Standing Committee D

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Railways and Transport Safety Bill

Clause 49 - Railways policing plan

Amendment proposed [13 February]: No. 61, in 
clause 49, page 20, line 9, at end insert 
 'including measures to reduce vandalism'.—[Mr. Don Foster.]
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Alan Hurst: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following amendments: No. 63, in
clause 56, page 22, line 28, after 'crime', insert ', including vandalism,'.
 No. 62, in 
clause 56, page 22, line 32, at end insert— 
 '( ) location of offences committed;'.
 I call Linda Perham.

Linda Perham: Thank you, Mr. Hurst, but I had concluded my remarks.

Anne McIntosh: What a pleasure it is to be back in Committee after a brief interlude last week. I am grateful to the Liberal Democrats for this opportunity to debate their amendments. It is interesting that they wish just one new crime—vandalism—to be included. I wonder why they have chosen that crime, when we heard that the serious crime of bigamy would continue to be undetected and unprosecuted by the British Transport police. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary appears not to have been paying attention during our earlier debates.

Don Foster: The hon. Lady is right that other crimes could be added to the list. Vandalism, or route crime as it now more often called, was included simply because of the large number of deaths and serious injuries it causes on our railways.

Anne McIntosh: The next question is obviously how the pursuit of vandalism as a crime by the national police force is set up under Home Office regulations. As I understand it, vandalism would be considered to be a crime to be pursued and investigated by the police, so the amendment is unnecessary. When we come to clause stand part we can debate the worrying increase in crime in and around railway stations, which the British Transport police should rightly investigate.
 What is the implication of the location of the offences? We had an interesting debate earlier about the phrase ''in the vicinity of''.

Don Foster: Perhaps I can go into a little more detail in my winding-up speech. The crucial point is that the current reporting procedures mean, rather bizarrely,
 that we do not have information relating to the location of acts of vandalism on the railway. There is therefore no opportunity for the police, the Health and Safety Executive or the train-operating companies to take targeted measures in areas of high vandalism on the railways.

Anne McIntosh: It is still not entirely clear that the right words have been chosen in that regard. The phrase ''in the vicinity of'' was preferable and it is found in existing law. Obviously, we will be the wiser when the hon. Gentleman winds up the debate.

David Jamieson: I welcome you back to the Chair, Mr. Hurst. It is a pleasure on such a sunny day to be sat in this Committee Room debating such important matters.
 This has been one of those occasions when I was beguiled by the arguments of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). Indeed, the eloquent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, North (Linda Perham) stirred the Committee considerably. I want to say a few words first about the clause and then address the specific matters raised in the hon. Member for Bath's amendments. 
 Clause 49 requires the authority to prepare an annual railways policing plan setting out the arrangements for policing, a statement of the authority's priorities for the year, the financial resources available and their proposed allocation. Amendment No. 61 would require the authority to include measures to reduce vandalism in its priorities for the forthcoming year. I fully understand the hon. Member for Bath's concern about railway vandalism. He alluded to the high incidence of vandalism; he will be aware that 54 per cent. of all incidents on the railway are due either to trespass or to vandalism. 
 Vandalism is also a significant cause of delays and can cause more serious accidents or incidents. It endangers not only railway staff and passengers but the offenders themselves. I understand the reasoning behind the amendments, but I will none the less to explain why, in the Bill's context, they are misplaced. We all have serious concerns about trespass and vandalism on the railways, but other crimes are also of great concern. I do not want to get bogged down in arguments about whether vandalism or bigamy is more common on the railways, as the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) did. I shall stick to vandalism as it appears to be a more pressing issue. 
 It would be wrong to specify in the Bill that one crime should be placed above all crimes as a priority. The Bill provides both the Secretary of State and the authority with powers to set objectives for policing the railways. Those powers will be the appropriate mechanism to target any crime, such as vandalism, that the authority wishes to make a priority. Those objectives must be incorporated in the railways policing plan. The current policing plan for the railways identifies six priority crimes: violence against a person; robbery; vehicle crime; railway disruption and vandalism; policing football; and managing fatalities. 
 For vandalism, the plan sets a target of fewer than 5,360 offences by the year-end, a 2 per cent. reduction on the previous year. The railways policing plan ties in with the authority's three-year strategy. The current strategy plan provides for the British Transport police 
''to work in partnership with all their community by developing partnerships and plans with the railways industry to tackle trespass and vandalism''.
 A senior officer has lead responsibility for the issue and his specific task is 
''implementing a national force strategy to assist the railway industry in combating Trespass and Vandalism''
 by 2002–03. I hope that that illustrates that it is unnecessary and impractical to specify vandalism in the Bill. It is for the authority to decide what the objectives for railways policing shall be within the structure provided in clause 47. With that assurance, I hope that the hon. Member for Bath will feel able to withdraw his amendment. 
 Amendment No. 63 refers to clause 56. I shall not address many of my remarks to clause 56, but it enables the Secretary of State to require the chief constable to provide statistical information about crime on the railways. There are no restrictions; the clause merely details matters on which he may request information. If the Secretary of State needs crime information from the force regarding a particular type or location of a crime, under the proposals, he already has the necessary powers to request it from the British Transport police, and it can be published in a summary form. The British Transport police play a full role in the fight against all railway crime, including trespass and vandalism, and comply with the national crime recording standard.

Don Foster: Can the Minister confirm that what he has just told the Committee is correct? I understand that the Reporting of Injuries, Disease and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations do not include a requirement to provide information and to record the location of, for example, arson on the railway. Will the Minister confirm which of us is correct?

David Jamieson: That would certainly be the case: the location and the type of crime could be recorded by the authority.

Don Foster: The Minister says that those matters could be recorded. My question concerns whether they are currently recorded. The Minister might look back at parliamentary answers that he has given to me on that very question to help him with his answer.

David Jamieson: I knew that those parliamentary answers would come back to haunt me. I will endeavour to find that information for the hon. Gentleman. However, the point that I tried to make was that what he seeks to do in his amendment will be achieved in the Bill. In particular, the annual crime figures produced by the British Transport police provide detailed figures on criminal damage, arson, graffiti, serious damage to railway property, damage that endangers safety, obstruction of the line, missiles thrown at trains, stone-throwing and trespass. I hope that that covers the points that he raised.
Mr. Foster indicated dissent.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, so I am sure that he will return to the matter later. I believe that the provisions are more than adequate for measuring the impact of trespass and vandalism.
 Amendment No. 62 concerns the location of offences committed. The British Transport police already publish annual figures for reported crimes on the railways in accordance with the Home Office guidelines. The total figure is broken down into the ''geographical'' areas of England, Scotland and Wales. The figures for England and Wales are further broken down into the following ''force areas'': the London underground, London north, London south, western, north-west and north-east. 
 Under the Bill, the British Transport police would continue to publish those figures on that basis for each year. The figures will also be laid before Parliament. I believe that that is sufficient for general information purposes, and that there is no need for any further statutory requirements on the location of crimes. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen will be persuaded by the strength and weight of my argument to withdraw his amendment.

Don Foster: It is delightful to be back, and to see the Minister back in good form, with his voice recovered. Unfortunately, I have to watch him with a halo round his head. I am not sure whether that is merely caused by the current location of the sun, or whether something has happened to him during the recess. The recess meant that for a whole week the Minister gave no performances in Westminster Hall. He has obviously been saving it all up for his response to these questions.
 I am delighted that the Minister was willing to give a detailed response, and that he took the issue seriously. So-called route crime on the railways is a serious matter. As I said, such incidents lead, on average, to approximately 100 deaths per year on the railways. That is a significantly larger number of people than those killed as a result of collisions or other accidents on the railways. 
 The issue is serious and it is therefore worth putting some of the statistics on record. Some 50 per cent. of all damage to trains on the UK network is inflicted by vandals throwing rocks or bricks from the line side, firing airguns at passing trains, or leaving obstructions on the track for trains to run over. According to the British Transport police, 640,000 objects are placed on the line every year. That has many devastating consequences, affecting all passengers on the railway. It is estimated that, in some depots, about 60 per cent. of lost driver time is the direct result of attacks by vandals on trains. Every year, 4 million objects are thrown at trains. 
 The total cost of vandalism and, more generally, of route crime is currently estimated to be in excess of £280 million a year. Those crimes strike me as being very serious, especially when we consider the information that I gave about the number of lives lost as a result of them. We should be taking them even more seriously. I have already argued that they should 
 be treated not only as civil crimes, but often as criminal cases and punished accordingly. It is important to recognise that Network Rail and the British Transport police are doing more and more work, which I recognise and welcome. However, unless we take the issue more seriously and give them the tools to do even more work, the figures from recent years that I quoted will be replicated in subsequent years. 
 I entirely accept the Minister's word that route crime, vandalism, trespass and arson are already covered by the more generic language of the Bill. I am sure that he will understand that the aim of the amendments is to provide an opportunity to focus the Committee's attention on the issue, even if they are not accepted. He said that he was prepared to reconsider the issue of the recording of information about where those incidents take place. Individual train-operating companies tend to have information about those sorts of incidents. 
 In response to my parliamentary question 
''To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many incidences of arson on the railways there were in each year since 1995, broken down by (a) train operating company and (b) line'',
 the Minister said that 
''The Health and Safety Executive's Annual Report on the safety record of the railways in Great Britain contains details of arson on the railways. Copies are available from the House Libraries. The 200102 report will be published on 18 December 2002.''—[Official Report, 17 December 2002; Vol. 396, c. 685W.]
 I greatly looked forward to reading that report, and rushed down to the Library the minute that it was published to find the details that would answer my question. Sadly, I could not find them because, as I said a few moments ago, the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations do not cover arson, for example. It is important to have more information about where the incidents take place so that we can identify hotspots. 
 Four years ago, Mr. Colin Hamling of St. Paul International, an underwriting insurance company, gave an interesting speech in which he said: 
''Not many people know this, but 71 per cent. of all arson takes place on Connex South East and the majority on the Abbey wood to Dartford stretch''.
 That was four years ago, so it was incumbent on me during the recent brief recess to check that remark with him. He recalls having said that, but now believes that the information might not have been entirely correct and that that is the location only of Connex South East incidents. However, he went on to make the point that it is difficult to be precise because of difficulties with the recording system. It is important to have more information about where the incidents take place and I am delighted that the Minister agrees with me on the issue of route crime. In the light of his assurances and the seriousness with which the Committee is taking this matter, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: May I take the Committee back to the Government's initial consultation paper and the comments made about it at the time? In their response to that paper, the British Transport police said in paragraph 7:
''We consider that the strength of BTP lies in its specialist role and unique and distinct expertise in policing the railway. We would wish to see this particular role expressed unequivocally in the legislation by defining the overarching function of the Authority as a duty 'to secure the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force for the railway'.''
 They continue in paragraph 8: 
''With similar intent, we would suggest that in relation to Ministerial objectives and priorities, it should be clearly set out that the new Authority would not be obliged to adopt Home Office objectives and priorities unless they correspond to the needs of the railway.''
 Paragraph 9 continues: 
''The Consultation Paper proposes to confer on the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, a range of functions paralleling those of the Home Secretary. It also proposes that the Secretary of State should continue to have an arbitration role in the event of disputes about policing. We support these proposals and emphasise that, in our view, it will be important in future that the Secretary of State acts synchronously with the Home Office, so that the framework for guidance of the Authority and Force is clear and cohesive. In relation to arbitration function, it is to be hoped that this would be exercised swiftly, to obviate delay and uncertainty to the Authority and the industry.''
 With respect to the clause, paragraph 24 is relevant: 
''The Consultation Paper proposes that the Authority should have power to make Regulations, subject to confirmation by the Secretary of State, to give effect to relevant elements of the national Police Regulations. This seems to us to be a sensible and practical mechanism to ensure that professional and personnel standards applying to BTP are in line with Home Office forces.''
 Paragraph 25 continues: 
''However, we would wish to see a clear statement that the Authority would not be obliged to adopt Home Office Regulations if it considers them inappropriate to the specialist role of the BTP or to involve disproportionate or unreasonable cost. In the event of any dispute on this matter, there should be provision for it to be resolved by the Secretary of State.''
 Is the clause as clear as that and does it go as far as the British Transport police hoped? The Government's plethora of responses to the consultation paper included general support for setting objectives for the British Transport police and acceptance of the fact that those objectives should reflect the Home Secretary's key priorities to the extent that they are of general application and relevant to railway policing. 
 Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary commented that the British Transport police's plans and priorities should primarily reflect the Home Secretary's national policing plan and also take account of the Secretary of State for Transport's priorities. The Government have an opportunity to show how they have sought to marry the two priorities in the clause. I want to probe the Minister further. We had an interesting debate on amendments Nos. 61, 63 and 62 and the hon. Member for Bath made some serious points. I am not convinced that the balance is right, or that the provisions go as far as the British Transport police wanted. 
 The Government also said that it was widely accepted that as the Secretary of State for Transport 
 is accountable to Parliament for the British Transport police's activities, he should have a power to set specific railway priorities. Indeed, clause 49(3)(b) gives the Secretary of State the power to specify any objective under the provisions in clause 48. However, the Government have admitted that some concern was expressed that that might signal greater Government involvement in British Transport police matters, and I want to fire a warning salvo that we do not want unnecessary interference from the Secretary of State for Transport. 
 I want to tease out from the Under-Secretary his views on how the Government expect clause 49 to marry two not conflicting but potentially diverging sets of priorities. The Home Office specifies one set, while the Secretary of State for Transport specifies the other. There was general acceptance that, as with Home Office police priorities, the British Transport police authority should have the power to set specific local objectives for the British Transport police, provided that they are consistent with the Government's specified policing priorities. 
 It is interesting that the Association of Police Authorities stressed the clear need for the Department for Transport to consult the British Transport police, the Association of Police Authorities, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office on British Transport police priorities to see how they fit in with wider ministerial priorities for local police forces. The need to consult on any specific performance indicators for the British Transport police was also stressed. I may have missed something, but I do not see how those needs have been addressed in clause 49. In developing its local objectives, indicators and targets, the British Transport police authority should also consult the Association of Police Authorities and the local police authority. 
 Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary considered that consultation should involve those living in close proximity to the railways. That is important. As the Bill is giving powers for the first time to investigators and inspectors under the rail accident investigation branch to enter dwelling houses, it is right that those setting the priorities under clause 49 should consult the people who live close to the areas that will be policed. Will the Under-Secretary explain to the Committee the procedure that the Government have set in place? In his remarks on clause 49 in response to amendments Nos. 61 to 63, I did not hear him mention that. We will turn later to the clauses on inspection, but it is appropriate now to ask the Under-Secretary how the Government have responded to the request of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary about the consultation that will take place with those living in close proximity to the railways as the priorities are set for policing under the plan. 
 The Strathclyde passenger transport executive stated that the passenger transport authorities and executives should also be consulted, and this morning is a useful opportunity for the Under-Secretary to explain how the Government have responded to that 
 request. All Members work with passenger transport executives up and down the country, and I believe that that request is sound. How have the Government reacted? I hope that they have acceded to it. 
 I understand that many respondents to the Government's consultation said that the Secretary of State should not set objectives for the British Transport police authority on the ground that it would increase central control of the British Transport police. That fear was expressed at the time of consultation, so how have the Government addressed it in clause 49? As the Under-Secretary said earlier in debating amendments Nos. 61 to 63, the strength of the British Transport police under clause 49 should be based on the idea that local is good. We should give the local British Transport police their head as much as possible in setting out what their strategy should be. 
 I think that one of the railway unions called for a one-year rather than a three-year strategy plan. Have the Government ruled that out as a matter of course? We are told in clause 49(4): 
''A plan for a year must be consistent with the relevant three-year strategy plan issued by the Authority''.
 If the Government have not acquiesced in that request, I am sure that there were good reasons for that. I just wondered what those reasons were. 
 The less able are particularly concerned about safety. I think that the figures given by the Minister showed that violent crime on or near railways had decreased. If that is so, it is surprising but very welcome, because violent crime throughout the country has increased, and certainly the perception is that crime near railways has increased. 
 I speak as a woman passenger. Most women of any age are reluctant to go to a railway station and use the train as a means of transport late at night, whether it is on the London underground or in a local railway station. Stations are often not well lit and are quite lonely places. There is a perception that even the walk between the railway station and the place where someone has parked their car can be dangerous. That is borne out by a spate of regrettable attacks throughout the country, in which younger women in particular have been murdered. The Government must address that. The perception of safety has to be improved, and there is much that railway companies can do, such as providing better lighting and closed circuit television cameras. I welcome the investment that the railway companies and Network Rail have made in lighting and CCTV, but I hope that that will be uniform. 
 I represent an area of the country that is urban in parts. Some 24,000 people live on the outskirts of York, and there are a number of small railway stations, which I call country stations—I am thinking of Cattal station and a number of other small stations that serve commuters. I would like to think that no one would be put off from using them because of the perception that they are not safe to use at night or on dark mornings.

Don Foster: May I say how much I agree with the hon. Lady? Does she share my concern that, in nearly five years of the Government's secure station initiative,
 fewer than 200 out of the 2,400 railway stations have achieved that status? It includes the requirement for measures to improve safety at the station significantly, so that people have that sense of security that she is talking about.

Anne McIntosh: I am sure that the Minister has heard what the hon. Member for Bath has said, and I look forward to his response. The Government may not regard small country stations such as Cattal as their top priority, but I would argue, as a Member of Parliament for a rural constituency, that they should be a priority. Cattal is an intermediate station between York and Harrogate. It is within the golden triangle of York, Harrogate and Leeds. Many people there can command high salaries and enjoy a good quality of life, but they still need to feel safe when using the railways at all times of day. I hope that the Government will hear what I say and roll out further the programme that was mentioned, in partnership with the railway companies and Network Rail.
 The Royal National Institute of the Blind is deeply concerned about the perceived rise in crime and the vulnerability of blind and partially sighted people, particularly to muggings and robbery, but also to youths misbehaving, whereas the more robust among us may laugh that off or fight them off. The RNIB feels that one of the biggest worries for blind and partially sighted people who travel by train is the fear of attack. Clauses 47 to 52 could be tightened in that regard. I hope that the Government will take the opportunity to address that issue. 
 The Government are wedded to the idea of partnership. The Minister spoke at some length about wanting the British Transport police to work in partnership with their communities. There was a call for that in the responses to the consultation paper. What vehicles do the Government expect to use? The Hambleton and Richmondshire crime partnership is an example of a good partnership at local level between the police and the local community. Will the Government take the opportunity to set up such schemes with the British Transport police?

Michael Clapham: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Lady is saying about local partnerships. There may well be the possibility of the railway police feeding into the local community partnership. The Minister may wish to give thought to that because it would allow for the involvement of the overall community, particularly schools. Where there is a high crime rate on a particular route at a given location in a community, there will be a chance to bring the whole of the community together within the local partnership.

Anne McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman has proved that there is a lot of common ground between us, although Barnsley, West and Penistone may not be quite as rural as the Vale of York. There was a Barnsley by-election not so long ago and I remember ringing round to try to solicit support for our candidate. As the Committee will appreciate it was not the most fertile territory. I was taken by the
 politeness and good manners of the people of Barnsley in declining my invitation to support our candidate.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) is concerned about this matter. Indeed, he secured an Adjournment debate, to which the Under-Secretary responded. There is a time frame in which youths vandalise and disrupt the railways, and children vandalise buses and stations after they come out from school. That correlation is extremely important, as the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) pointed out. We must work closely and include schools in that partnership against crime. If we can motivate children to go to more after-school activities such as football and other sports, it might prevent them from causing devastation on the trains or the buses. 
 The Minister told us this morning that he wants the British Transport police to work in partnership with their local community. He said that a senior officer would have lead responsibility for that and would implement the national force strategy against both vandalism and trespass. How would implementing the national strategy sit with developing the local strategy? Clearly the local strategy required in rural parts of North Yorkshire is different from that required for the London underground. How will the Government seek to marry the potential divergence from priorities that are rightly set by the Home Office for the national police force? We should respond to the plea from the British Transport police that the Secretary of State for Transport have policing priorities that are specifically relevant to their work on the railways. We must ensure that the British Transport police are charged only with responsibilities relating primarily to railways. 
 In relation to issuing the plan and setting priorities for the year, the allocation of financial resources is important. As we saw earlier, business is uneasy about its representation on the authority. Having been well represented up to now with four out of nine members, business will be represented by four out of 13, 15 or whatever maximum number the Government choose. If the policing plan is to mean anything, sufficient resources must be allocated and, as we are to see a weakening of industrial representation on the Authority, we must ensure that all industrial interests are consulted effectively on the national policing plan and the three-year strategy. 
 The chief constable is requested to submit to the authority a draft plan for each financial year. I am sure that the Minister will want to assure me that the chief constable will continue to have operational responsibility for the stated priorities. Clause 49(6) is curious. It states: 
''Before issuing a plan which differs from the Chief Constable's draft the Authority shall consult him.''
 I am concerned that that power could weaken the chief constable's responsibility and influence. His importance is understood everywhere else and acknowledged by the Government. We heard the Minister's response earlier, but I hope that we can go further. 
 The British Transport police assured us that they would continue to publish regionally broken down 
 figures. The document issued last week showed comparisons between North Yorkshire and similar forces such as Cumbria and Devon. Will a similar league table be provided for the British Transport police, showing the comparative effectiveness in meeting the policing plan and three-year strategy?

David Jamieson: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her succinct remarks on the clause, and I shall try to respond in an equally succinct matter. The clause requires the authority to prepare an annual policing plan in accordance with section 8 of the Police Act 1996. The plan will set out the arrangements for policing the railways during the year, specifying any objectives, including those set by the Secretary of State, together with related performance targets, the authority's priorities, the financial resources available and the proposed allocation. The clause provides for the publication of the plan.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York rightly talked about the reluctance of people to use stations at night, especially vulnerable people such as women and those who have poor sight or are blind. We are mindful of that. People need to feel safe if they are to access transport in general and the railways in particular, especially at more difficult times of the day such as in the evening or early morning. I am aware that some local authorities have worked closely with those who have responsibility for particular stations to examine access and lighting. It is not always the station that causes the problems, but its hinterland. Many local authorities are doing a lot of work with the substantial new money that we have given them through their local transport plans. That issue is very much in our minds and in the minds of many representatives of local authorities who work closely with those who operate the stations. 
 In response to some of the hon. Lady's earlier remarks, it must be said that in the end the Secretary of State must be accountable for the British Transport police authority. He must have the appropriate powers to act if something goes wrong. The Bill gives him those powers, but they would be used only if required. It is not intended that they be used frequently or readily, but they must be there should the need arise. 
 The hon. Lady talked about the consultation document and the responses to it. She rightly pointed out that the responses were very favourable, especially to this part of the Bill. The Bill reflects the consultation document and the views expressed when we issued it. We conducted the consultation so that we could hear what people had to say and do our best to reflect those views in the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The more I became involved in the consultation, the more interesting I found it, which shows what a sad person I am. Will the Minister say why the replies have been taken off the website?

David Jamieson: I do not know if they have, but I can look into that and if they have been removed, I will endeavour to find out why.
 Clause 48 allows the Secretary of State to set the objectives, but clause 49 says that the authority only 
 has to ''have regard'' to the guidance that the Home Secretary has set. I am sure that the hon. Lady will realise that that is correct. It is a question of having regard to the objectives for the Home Office police.

John Randall: I apologise to members of the Committee if the question that I am about to ask has already been answered—I was away when the Committee last sat. Is the Secretary of State to which the Minister refers the Secretary of State for Transport?

David Jamieson: I referred to two Secretaries of State. The Home Secretary obviously sets the objectives for the Home Office police. When I referred to the Secretary of State setting objectives, I was talking about the Secretary of State for Transport in the context of the Bill. I hope that that is clear.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York talked at some length about whom the authority should consult, which is a fair point. The authority may consult whomever it thinks fit. The Secretary of State for Transport will expect there to be wide consultation. I do not want to open up a debate about clause 59, but clause 59(1)(m) says that the authority may make arrangements to obtain opinions about the policing of the railways of 
''other persons with an interest in the railways whom the Authority thinks it appropriate to consult.''
 That may include some of the people whom the hon. Lady mentioned, especially those who live by the railways and who are affected by certain aspects of crime or other things that might be happening on the railways. I hope that the hon. Lady feels that it has been given sufficient importance in this part of the Bill. 
 The railways policing plan is equivalent to the local policing plan in section 8 of the Police Act 1996. The three-year strategy plan, which we will come to in clause 52, is equivalent to the three-year strategy plan in that Act. I can assure the hon. Lady that violence is a priority area of crime in the British Transport police's current annual policing plan. She will be pleased to know that they are doing very well in reducing that type of crime. Violence deters people from using the railway and puts them at risk.

John Randall: I am interested in those violent crimes statistics. Are they for crimes on the railway or in stations? We were talking about the hinterland. How do those statistics relate to locations?

David Jamieson: The statistics refer to those matters in the purview of the British Transport police, which we covered extensively in our discussions the week before last. My reference to the hinterland may relate to consultation. The authority may wish to consult more widely with groups of people who live near the railway or who represent passengers, which is a totally different matter.
 The British Transport police will use intelligence-led policing to target their finite resources on identified areas of crime on the railway. The hon. Lady would expect them to do that. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone raised an important point about the British Transport police participating 
 in crime reduction partnerships. I am informed that that happens regularly. They co-operate with the local police and authorities and they also work with the national route crime group where that is appropriate. I hope that that puts my hon. Friend's mind at rest. 
 The hon. Lady was concerned that some of the more localised areas may feel that a national plan would not cover their interests properly or reflect local needs. I assure her that the local strategy is the responsibility of the British Transport police's area commander. It would be up to him to identify in the local strategy issues that were relevant to that area and to consult with the relevant bodies and persons. The hon. Lady referred to subsection (6). It is based on section 8(4) of the Police Act 1996. I do not know whether she was in Parliament then, but the Government of the day were more in keeping with her views. She asked about the answers on the web. I am informed that they were never on the web, but the replies are in the Libraries of both Houses. I hope that covers her points.

Anne McIntosh: Logging on to the website is a mind-blowing experience that I thoroughly recommend to all members of the Committee. It will enable them to follow the proceedings of the Committee and our consideration of the Bill. The summary of replies to the consultation paper and the Government response were published in September 2002. I understand from speaking to those who responded from the industry and the police force that they assumed that the paper and the response would be available on the web. However, they are not. It is good that they are in the Library but, as I said, there are probably not enough copies to go round, whereas one merely has to click on the web. I make a plea to the Government to make them more widely available.
 Bearing in mind that the response to the consultation and the Government's reply to those responses was published some considerable time ago, the Government had sufficient time before publishing the Bill to consider what form the consultation with the local partnerships would take. I want to record my disappointment that they have not done so, and my disappointment at the Under-Secretary's weak response this morning, which I must say is out of character for him. He also seems not to have taken on board the real concerns of disabled groups such as the RNIB. 
 The Bill introduces a radical new power that, for the first time, gives inspectors the right to enter people's property even without a warrant in their hand. The inspectors are empowered to enter someone's house shortly after an accident. I would have thought it incumbent on the Government to prepare the ground by encouraging the local British Transport police to develop a good working relationship with those living near stations and the track. I am sure that we will return to this matter at the first available opportunity. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 49 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 50 - Performance targets

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This is a much shorter clause. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that the ''Secretary of State'' again refers to the Secretary of State for Transport. Subsection (1) immediately sets alarm bells ringing for Opposition Members. It states:
''The Secretary of State may by direction to the Authority require it to set a target in relation to the achievement of an objective set under section 48.''
 I know that you are here in an independent and impartial capacity, Mr. Hurst, but you would have thought that the one thing that the Government would have learnt was that they have been setting too many targets—for the police, the health service, doctors, nurses and education. The country is exhausted by all these targets. The clause fails to respond to the genuine concern expressed by the British Transport police, which the Government referred to on page 6 in its summary of the consultations. They said: 
''However, some concern was expressed that this''
 power of direction 
''might signal greater government involvement in BTP matters.''
 Will the Minister say whether there is a similar clause of direction that relates to the Home Secretary? Given the powers under clauses 48 and 49, does this power really need to progress to be the Secretary of State's power of direction over the authority? That relates to the point that I made about clause 49. It is my clear understanding that the chief constable has ultimate authority for operational control of a police force. If the circumstances are difficult, the authority might argue that it does not have sufficient resources. I wonder how a particular local British Transport police authority and its chief constable will be able to discharge their responsibilities if a power of direction is granted under clause 50. Will the circumstances in which the power of direction may be used be limited? Will the Minister set out the specific circumstances that have been envisaged? He may be able to quote from a relevant passage in the 1996 Act or from the Home Secretary, but I imagine that it would dent the morale of a local British Transport police force if the Secretary of State for Transport intervened to set a power of direction, particularly considering the powers given to the chief constable and authority in clauses 48 and 49. 
 I thought that the point of the Bill was to allow the authority and chief constable to set their annual policing plan and three-year strategy plan without interference from either the Secretary of State for Transport or the Home Secretary. I want to know about the performance targets. Do they relate to personnel, the amount of sick leave or level of early retirement, or are they strictly policing targets that relate to how the British Transport police discharge their responsibilities? If the Secretary of State published a direction under the clause, would the House be able to debate it? What form would publication take—would it be printed as a statutory 
 order or published and left in the Library without any attention being sought? How would Members know that such a direction had been published? 
 I think that I am right in saying that, in Scotland, policing is reserved but transport is devolved. Why does the Secretary of State for Transport have any power to set policing targets for railways in Scotland? I am obviously getting confused, but I think that I am right in saying that transport is devolved. Will the Minister explain the situation? 
 It will not come as a bolt out of the blue to the Minister to be told that we are tired of targets. We are sceptical about a power of direction by the Secretary of State over the police authority. How does that square with the 1996 Act and the powers of the Home Secretary? How will it allow the chief constable and authority to fulfil their responsibilities under clauses 48 and 49? Will the Minister also tell us about the circumstances in which a power of direction will be introduced? Will it be given to just one local British Transport police force or to all of them across the board?

John Spellar: I was interested to hear that the Opposition do not require targets. We will record that for future exchanges during Transport questions and on other occasions.
 We should be able to deal with the points briefly, because we seem to be making heavy weather of the clause. I am sure that the hon. Lady understands that this series of clauses, along with the whole of part 3 on the British Transport police, is designed wherever possible to follow the procedures that apply for other police forces in the country, which is exactly what clause 50 does. It replicates the Home Secretary's power.

Don Foster: Would it not benefit the Committee if the Minister referred us to the speech that he made in this Committee on 13 February at columns 252 to 254 of the Official Report, in which he made the remarks on clause 48 that I suspect he is about to make again.

John Spellar: The hon. Gentleman is right: repetition is catching in this Committee. However, it is necessary to reiterate briefly the key elements. The clause replicates the Home Secretary's power to set performance targets for local police forces under section 38 of the Police Act 1996 passed by the previous Conservative Government. Therefore, it would seem sensible to have a degree of conformity across the piece wherever possible and appropriate.
 In general terms, the provision enables the Secretary of State to require the authority to set a performance target. I stress that the clause says ''may''. It provides an enabling power that will be subject to the views of Scottish Ministers about targets for policing the railways in Scotland. I think that gives a clear indication that this is a mundane clause designed to harmonise best practice.

Anne McIntosh: I heard what the Minister said but he has not given us an example of the circumstances. Clearly, the power is only discretionary and we welcome that, but he must have an example in mind. He also failed to address whether it would be a performance target relating to the operation of the British Transport police or whether it would cover personnel matters such as early retirement and sick leave.

John Spellar: May I give the hon. Lady a couple of examples from the Home Office police forces? The Home Secretary has required local police forces to set performance targets on domestic burglaries, vehicle crimes and robberies. The Secretary of State for Transport would consider appropriate targets for transport.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 51 - Performance directions

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: This clause takes us back to our earlier discussion on best value authorities. The Secretary of State is given a discretionary power to
''give a direction to the Authority containing provision of a kind which he could make in respect of a best value authority''.
 I wonder whether the Minister could clarify ''best value authority''. 
 I understand that in the responses to the consultation, which took place some time before the Bill was published to allow the Government to digest and translate the responses into the Bill, the Association of Police Authorities and the Hampshire police authority considered that the British Transport police authority should be statutorily designated as a best value authority and endure the full rigours of a compliance inspection and order. 
 The Association of Chief Police Officers also asked that consideration be given to that point. It considered best value to be an extremely powerful performance management tool, but that requiring the British Transport police authority to adopt best value principles would not be effective. Rather than allow the British Transport police authority to act as a best value authority, are the Government minded to make it incumbent on the Secretary of State to give it direction in that regard? 
 The Hampshire police authority also suggested that the arrangements for the British Transport police authority should take into account the outcome of the Home Office and the Department of Transport, Local Government and the Regions review of the best value regime. If the Government have taken it into account, will the Minister explain how that translates into clause 51, because it is not obvious? 
 I gather that an opposite view was put by those who considered that the British Transport police authority should be modelled on another authority but should 
 have no such obligation in respect of best value. I wonder whether, because of the two contrasting views in the responses, the Government feel that the matter is not as clear as it should be, and that is why clause 51 gives the Secretary of State the discretionary power to direct. Again, I did not hear the Minister say how that direction would be published. Will he be good enough to tell the Committee today how it is intended that the Secretary of State shall publish a discretionary direction under subsection (2)? Will he also say today whether the House would have an opportunity to debate that? What vehicle would be used? Would it be a statutory instrument Committee, a Select Committee, or would the matter be debated on the Floor of the House? 
 It is interesting that the Secretary of State is asked to consult not only the authority, but 
''any other person that he thinks appropriate.''
 That drafting seems extremely wide. I wonder whom the Government have it in mind that the Secretary of State might consult. Would it be a passenger transport executive or Network Rail? 
 Again, conflicting views were expressed at the time of the consultation. How have the Government sought to resolve in the clause the conflict in the responses to the consultation paper? In what circumstances does the Minister envisage that the discretion granted to the Secretary of State might be used? Can he give examples of the circumstances in which the Government imagine that it might be used for the purposes of the British Transport police? Corresponding examples of where that provision has been used by the Home Secretary for the local police authorities would also be welcome. To satisfy my curiosity, let me probe the Minister a little further. Who might the other person or people be whom the Secretary of State thought it appropriate to consult?

John Spellar: The British Transport police authority is not defined as a best value authority, because it relates to a national force, whereas the Home Office forces have a clear geographical area. The consultation mechanisms that are written into the best value procedures are less appropriate or less manageable than they are for the local forces, whose areas in many cases parallel those of local authorities. I understand that, for those reasons, the National Crime Squad Service Authority has agreed that the British Transport police authority should not be a best value authority under the Local Government Act 1999, and the British Transport police committee agreed with that proposal.
 All agreed, however, that the principles of best value should be applied. In that context, the British Transport police are already committed on a voluntary basis to best value practices and to putting together a programme of reviews over four years, taking account of intensive consultations with railway users. That includes issues such as policing football, criminal justice, scientific support, managing sickness and crime management. 
 The hon. Lady asked who would be consulted. I am sure that she realises that unless one puts in a phrase that designates as appropriate, unforeseen 
 circumstances could undermine the legislation. We are trying to enable the Secretary of State to consult, where appropriate, as widely as possible to serve the objectives of the force. It is clear that the British Transport police do and will follow many of the principles of best value, but it is not appropriate to designate the British Transport police authority as a best value authority within the understanding of that term as it applies to local authorities and the Home Office police forces.

Anne McIntosh: I should just like to record the fact that it will be disappointing for the British Transport police that they could be perceived to be in a different league from the local police forces. The Government seem to think that the reason is that a local police force has a defined geographical area, but the Under-Secretary of State said that the British Transport police will break down the figures by region, which implies that there is some sort of geographical breakdown by region.

Don Foster: I listened with great interest to the hon. Lady's concerns. Does she agree with the Minister that the difference between the British Transport police and Home Office police forces is that there are representatives of democratically elected bodies—local councils—on the Home Office police authorities, but no similar representation on the British Transport police authority? That makes a significant difference.

Anne McIntosh: That is separate to my argument. The hon. Gentleman's argument relates to the debate about the constitution of the authority. If he feels so strongly about that, I am surprised that he is raising the issue now and that he did not raise it when we had the opportunity to debate it.
 I do not understand the reasons for the Government's failure to say that the British Transport police should be able to operate as a best value authority. In one respect, I almost expect the British Transport police to be relieved. If I were them, I would heave a huge sigh of relief that I do not have to commit substantial public funds to produce a glossy brochure that local authorities must produce for best value. Will the Minister give us specific examples of instances in which the Secretary of State for Transport may give a direction for the railways? In what specific instances has the Home Secretary used that power under the 1996 Act?

John Spellar: I shall have to write to the hon. Lady about the use of the legislation by the Home Secretary, but I have already indicated that the British Transport police operate in several areas. I gave a list, although not an exhaustive one, of areas in which they practise best value, albeit voluntarily. Under the clause, the Secretary of State may set further objectives if he believes them to be necessary. They would then be sent to the appropriate authority and published on the website and by other means, as appropriate. They would not, however, be debatable, save, of course, through the usual mechanisms for raising matters in the House.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister may be a more avid enthusiast for monitoring the contents of the
 Government's website. I do not believe that the Government always know what is on it.
 I refer back to the Government's response, which places the British Transport police in some difficulty. It states: 
''The Government is not convinced that it is appropriate for the BTPA to be defined in law as a Best Value Authority.''
 It continues: 
''It is, however, appropriate for the BTPA to adopt the principles of Best Value, to carry out Best Value Reviews and publish an annual Best Value Performance Plan.''
 The British Transport police are left in the worst of all possible worlds. They fall between two stools; they sit on neither one of them. 
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 51 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 52 - Three-year strategy plan

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: The significance of the clause and the principle of having a three-year strategy plan relate closely to clauses 47 to 51. Will the Minister tell us whom the Government expect the authority to consult when setting out its three-year strategy plan? I hope that they will take the opportunity to build up good relationships with local communities—the Government would probably use their jargon about local partnerships. It is interesting to note that medium and long-term strategies for policing the railways should be set out in each consecutive period of three financial years.
 Considering the new powers that are given to the British Transport police under the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, how will short-term contingency planning fit in, particularly in the event of a terrorist attack? We have established that all parts of the transport infrastructure, not least the railways, are threatened and that at the height of the Northern Irish atrocities paramilitary groups made several attempts to blow up a line of track or a railway bridge. How does the short-term contingency plan fit in with the three-year strategy plan, as well as provisions in other clauses? 
 The relevant sections of the Police Act 1996 will affect the policing of the railways. Will the Minister confirm that the authority, acting with the chief constable, will determine the priorities that are deemed to be less relevant to the work of the British Transport police under the appropriate sections of the 1996 Act? Will he confirm that the authority and chief constable will be empowered to do that? That will go some way to meeting the forceful requests for them to be enabled to set railway specific priorities in the short and medium-to-long term, and particularly under the three-year strategy plan. How will the three-year strategy plan enable the British Transport police authority and the chief constable to achieve that? I 
 hope that the Secretary of State will not try to invoke the power of authority under previous clauses or say that the British Transport police authority should not have dropped the provisions of the Police Act 1996. 
 It is interesting that no specific mention is made of the new powers, which were welcomed by the British Transport police. I have mentioned the short-term threat of terrorism, but we all realise that the nature and threat of terrorism has changed from the Northern Irish context to a more global threat. How will that be reflected in the three-year strategy plan? Will the Minister explain, with reference to the national policing plan and in the context of the whole of part 3, how the relevant clauses will sit comfortably with the development of a three-year strategy plan? It is clearly an important tool, and the Government have said that they are keen on setting performance targets, so how will the three-year strategy plan be measured against the annual policing properties? Will there be opportunities for the authority to amend the plan during its life?

John Spellar: I think that it was Eisenhower who said that all plans break down on first contact with the enemy, but that it is still necessary to plan. Inevitably, plans produced for either the medium or long term must be amended in the light of emergencies, as happened with the necessary updating of terrorism legislation.
 Like other clauses, clause 52 merely replicates the requirements made on Home Office police authorities, which are required to produce a plan outlining their medium and long-term strategies every three years. The hon. Lady rightly said that the priorities would be decided by the authority and chief constable, subject to the overriding authorities that we have previously discussed. 
 Again, the clause is designed to bring the British Transport police in line, as far as possible, with legislation that covers Home Office police forces, precisely because that has been a long-standing desire not only within the British Transport police, but elsewhere. The provision facilitates that process with regard to good practice for the police and, indeed, the users of the railway service.

Anne McIntosh: The Minister did not deal with my questions about which parts of the Police Act 1996 would be deemed appropriate to be dropped to allow the British Transport police to concentrate on those functions. That is their specific request. Presumably it was made on a number of occasions, face to face and during the formal consultation. I am disappointed that the Minister has not dealt with my comments on that. I am happy to allow him to respond if he wishes to do so.

John Spellar: I would be grateful if the hon. Lady could amplify, although not at too great a length, the point that she is pursuing.

Anne McIntosh: I apologise if I have not made myself clear. Clause 52(2) says that the relevant sections of the 1996 Act in relation to the three-year strategy plans
''shall have effect (with any necessary modification)''.
 I presume that to mean that the legislation will be modified to the extent that the British Transport police will apply it in so far as it relates to railway policing, which is their specific responsibility. I just wondered whether, for the benefit of the Committee, the Minister could say which parts of the Act would require modification.

John Spellar: Yes, I shall certainly provide the hon. Lady with the necessary text.

Anne McIntosh: It would have been nice to have a more formal response today. I shall simply echo what the British Transport police said to the Government in response to the consultation paper. Obviously, they were pleased by the action that the Government had taken on the British Transport police's jurisdiction and powers in the context of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. I have expressed my curiosity as to why the relevant sections of that legislation have not been reflected in the clause, which deals specifically with the three-year strategy plan. The clause relates quite properly to the 1996 Act. I wonder why it does not also refer to the new powers granted under the 2001 Act. Was that a deliberate omission?
 I leave the Government with this thought on the clause. I cannot express it any better than the British Transport police did in paragraph 33 of their response: 
''For too long the British Transport Police have been considered as an afterthought, or not at all, in policing legislation. We urge Government to ensure in future that as new police powers are legislated, proper and careful consideration is given to the question of applying those powers to BTP with a presumption that they will be so applied unless manifestly inappropriate to the specialist role of BTP. Without such a presumption, the powers available to BTP may become out of date and inadequate to deal with prevailing criminality and disorder affecting the railway.''
 I end on a note of surprise, shock and disappointment that, having had that heartfelt plea from the British Transport police, the Government did not feel moved to respond. I should have thought that it was entirely appropriate, in the context of clause 52 and the development of a three-year strategy plan, to refer to the new powers under the 2001 Act.

John Spellar: I think that I now understand where the hon. Lady is coming from, although she is fundamentally mistaken. She rightly says that the British Transport police want to be as analogous as possible to the Home Office police forces, subject to any intrinsic differences that result from running a national railway police force. That is precisely why, through a number of clauses, which she has chosen to debate, we are bringing the practice of the British Transport police and authority in line with the prevailing legislation that governs the management of the other forces. That is why we are replicating the appropriate sections. In this Bill we are talking about a strategy plan. By definition, the exercise of powers outside the railways provided by the anti-terrorism legislation is reactive to incidents. It is difficult to plan for that. The British Transport police have the mechanisms to respond to that and, as she rightly says, are included in the legislation. It is precisely to satisfy that demand that we have introduced these clauses.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53 - Reports by Chief Constable

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Under this clause, after the end of the financial year the chief constable submits a report about the policing of the railways. Presumably that would be his opportunity to say whether they have met the Government's targets and the priorities of their annual railways policing plan or the three-year strategy plan. Presumably he will draft this report in conjunction with his assistant chief constable. It was pointed out to the Government during the consultation that service as an assistant chief constable in the British Transport police is not recognised for promotion to chief constable rank in Scotland. The Minister would presumably want to encourage free flow and the possibility of promotion through the ranks of the British Transport police anywhere within the United Kingdom. Apparently this matter arises from the express terms of legislation in Scotland. The position is different in England and Wales.
 The British Transport police obviously believe that service in the British Transport police, at whatever rank, should count when an officer applies for promotion in another force, even if it is a move from England to Scotland. I simply leave that thought with the Minister. Someone who has the potential to become a chief constable in one British Transport police force in England should not be excluded from consideration for promotion to chief constable in Scotland. The Government were made aware of that—

Alan Hurst: Order. Could the hon. Lady direct me to where these matters are referred to in the clause?

Anne McIntosh: Yes. As I said Mr. Hurst, I should like to think that the chief constable in preparing the report would consult his assistant chief constable. There should be some mobility and some possibility—

Alan Hurst: Order. The hon. Lady will need to direct her attention to the exact wording of the clause, rather than speculate on other matters.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to you, Mr. Hurst.
 Can the Minister confirm that the chief constable, as with other national police forces, will be operationally responsible for delivering on the priorities? Will the report that he submits be debated? Under subsection (5) it is the chief constable's responsibility to publish the report. Would it not be in the interests of the British Transport police and the British Transport police authority for the report to be published? Surely the Government do not intend the annual report submitted by the chief constable to the authority to be a private, internal document, but want it to show the extent to which he has met his annual priorities, Government targets and the annual part of the three-year strategy plan to which it refers. Do the Government intend the plan to be published, so that the wider community, particularly the parts policed by 
 the British Transport police, will have an opportunity to consider it? Will the Minister confirm that the Government do not intend the report to be a private, internal document, but want it to be debatable by the authority and available to those interested? 
 I am more concerned about subsection (5)(b), which says: 
''the report or part shall be published only if the Secretary of State directs that it should be published.''
 I hope that the Minister will confirm that the chief constable will remain autonomous not just for operational responsibilities of the police, and that the annual report will, for example, be able to reflect recruitment procedures and morale in the police force and give an overview of personnel matters such as levels of early retirement and sick leave, which can be indicators of a force's morale. Will he also confirm that the Government do not intend to allow the Secretary of State to block publication of the report? What purpose would blocking its publication serve? I cannot believe that it is in the best interests of the British Transport police that the chief constable's report be blocked. 
 Subsection (3) states: 
''The Authority may require the Chief Constable to submit a report on specified matters connected with the performance of his functions.''
 Clause 53 is very vague. The Minister may say that the relevant section in the 1996 Act laying down similar procedures was equally vague, but surely if the report is to be worth anything, the Bill should say what its contents should be. Will the report deal with personnel matters, the morale of the British Transport police, the ease with which they are recruiting and any recruitment difficulties, and any potential terrorist threat? Will it cover performance indicators, which we heard about during the debate on clause 49, when I think the Minister listed violence to the person, robbery, vehicle crime, vandalism, managing football matches and fatalities? Will he confirm that those indicators will rightly be reviewed each year in the context of the report that the chief constable is asked to publish? 
 Presumably, the British Transport police will not be responsible for managing football matches, unless a particular event is taking place and there is a shortage in the national police force. I hope that the Minister will confirm that in the normal course of events it is not the British Transport police's primary responsibility to manage football matches and that they will be allowed to set their own priorities.

John Randall: Presumably the British Transport police have responsibility for fans coming out of railway stations and will probably be along the route towards the stadiums.

Anne McIntosh: That is a pertinent point. Perhaps the Minister will explain what percentage of British Transport police time is taken up with that matter annually. If the reports are not to be published, how
 will local people served by that particular police authority know?
 Will the reports drafted by the chief constable have regard to each of the categories? Presumably, the Minister will say that the Government's information is sourced from the annual reports prepared by the chief constables. They are an immensely useful source of information. Will he be able to confirm that they will be published in the usual way? If they are published, will that happen on the local British Transport police website, will they be circulated to the relevant partners, or will they just be debated within the police authority? 
 A number of potentially alarming issues are not addressed in clause 53, which raises the question of why it has been so loosely and vaguely drafted. Will the Minister confirm that the report will address each of the priorities that have been set as part of the railways policing plan, the performance targets set by the Secretary of State and the three-year strategy plan? Will it go further than that and comment on recruitment, those entering and leaving the British Transport police service in that year and issues of morale in the particular British Transport police force, especially with regard to sick leave and early retirement? It should be published as widely as possible. 
 Will the Minister explain the circumstances in which clause 53(a) and (b) would be applied? Have the Government just lifted the provisions from the 1996 Act? Is there going to be something damaging in the chief constable's report that they would not wish to see published?

Don Foster: We move to an interesting part of the Bill. Clauses 53 to 57 are rather different from some of the earlier clauses in so far as they replicate not just the 1996 Act, but two Acts of 1996 and 1997 with regard to the British Transport police. I am beginning to wonder whether there might not be great merit in adopting shorthand in Committee, by which the hon. Member for Vale of York simply stood up and said, ''Question A?'' and the Minister replied, ''Answer B''. Question A is, ''Why are we doing it?'' Answer B is, ''Because it is what we have already done in relation to the Police Acts of 1996 and 1997.''
 To be fair to the hon. Lady, she always adds several additional questions. During our deliberations on clause 48, she raised an important point when she said that we have had the Police Acts of 1996 and 1997 for several years, and during that time, there has been opportunity to review practice by Home Office police forces with regard to the relevant provisions of the Acts. 
 Perhaps it is incumbent on the Minister to briefly tell us whether, in relation to the reports under clauses 53 and 54, there has been any consideration as to whether there might be a more streamlined way of doing things. I find it slightly odd that under clause 53 there is a possibility of two reports. One is the report in relation to policing on the railway during that year. The other relates to the performance of the chief constable's functions. Then we will see the authority's report, which we will debate under clause 54. 
 Can the Minister tell us how the Home Office police forces have dealt with that in practice? Clearly, the publication of three separate reports going over the same ground would be rather costly and not very beneficial. I do not ask such questions without having done a little homework. I know the answer—I know what the practice is. Bearing that practice in mind, does the Minister not consider, on reflection, that clauses 53 and 54 could have been amended to bring the legislation's wording into line with current practice, and with what I assume he imagines that British Transport police practice will be?

David Jamieson: The clause requires the chief constable to submit to the British Transport police authority annual reports on the policing of the railways during the previous year. It is based on provisions in the Police Act 1996 and, as the hon. Member for Bath pointed out, the Police Act 1997. Only where it is necessary to meet the specific needs of the authority and the British Transport police have the corresponding provisions in those Acts not been followed.
 The clause allows the authority to require the chief constable to produce reports on specific issues. He may choose not to publish all or parts of such reports where that would be unnecessary or not in the public interest, unless the Secretary of State directs him to do otherwise. That is in line with section 22 of the Police Act 1996, with which the hon. Gentleman is well acquainted. 
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked, at the start of her remarks, about service matters relating to Scotland. I am sure that she has seen the Government's response in the summary of replies to the consultation paper ''Modernising the British Transport Police''. Our response is set out clearly in paragraph 8.5 of that document, which says: 
''The Home Office announced on 1 August 2002 that the Police (Amendment) Regulations 2002 allow officers from the BTP to count their service with the BTP for pay and allowances purposes on joining a police force in England and Wales.''
 The Department for Transport is pursuing a similar arrangement with the Scottish Executive, but the regulations for the Scottish police forces are of course a matter for the Scottish Executive. 
 Much play has been made of this clause and the report to be made by the authority under the following clause. The hon. Member for Bath asked the teacher's question—one to which he already knows the answer. He knows that because he has asked me about it previously, I have written it down for him and it has appeared in Hansard. He has an intimate record of all such things, and so have I. In practice, the authority's and the chief constable's reports will be together in one report. That is the practice.

Don Foster: Oh, I did not know that.

David Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman feigns surprise. It shows that we both read the answers to the questions that I give him. I think that that covers his points about streamlining reports. I agree with him. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic to have too many such reports floating around. There are, however, two separate responsibilities, which must be identified in
 the Bill, partly because the earlier part of the Bill specifies individual responsibilities for the authority and for the police. Generally, however, those reports will be published together.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York asked questions on what is currently published by the British Transport police. The annual report is a general report on the year's policing, but the ''Statistical Bulletin'' has best value performance figures on recruitment and crime. The hon. Lady was concerned about how they are set out. Those are matters for the chief constable and the authority to set out in the way they see fit. People who do not like that will make their views known. 
 In practice, the report will be a joint report. If the chief constable's report is separate, it can be published by the authority. Clause 54(3) sets out a responsibility for the authority to publish the annual report.

Don Foster: I think that I have an understanding of the situation in respect of the Home Office police forces. Publication could imply the production of one copy under clause 54, sending it to the Secretary of State and so on. I know it is intended for the report to be fairly widely distributed. Will the Minister give us an indication of the bodies to which copies of the report will automatically be sent?

David Jamieson: These days with modern technology the reports would be placed on what I call the privacy of the web, so they will be widely available. They will also be sent to interested parties in the railways industry and will be widely available to people who want them. Those who have an interest in seeing what was in the report would have no difficulty in obtaining it, although I am not sure that it would be bedside reading for every one of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, but it would be available to those to whom it was relevant.
 The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to clause 53(5) and the circumstances in which the report may not be published. Those would be where the interests of the state were at stake, or where there were reasons of great importance why it would not be in the public interest for it to be published. However, the final decision will lie with the Secretary of State. The hon. Lady asked about detailed figures on British Transport police recruitment, which will continue to be published. She also asked about current targets—as did the hon. Member for Uxbridge—when she talked about policing near football grounds. In relation to the authority's current targets, data is produced on more serious incidents relating to football disorder. National Criminal Intelligence Service data for the football season 2000–01 shows that 81 of the more serious football-related incidents occurred within the railway environment. 
 The British Transport police are responding to an increasing number of incidents connected to persons travelling by rail to sporting events and in particular to football matches. That is an important part of their role because the people involved generally travel on some form of public transport, particularly the railways. As we discussed earlier, there may be 
 specific circumstances where the Home Office police may call on the British Transport police for support and extra help if they feel it necessary. I hope that this brief debate has been useful.

Anne McIntosh: I am grateful to the Minister for the opportunity to debate those issues. One issue is outstanding, which I omitted to mention and which was not referred to in the Government's targets or by the Minister in summing up. Concern was expressed in the original consultation paper about the safety of British Transport police officers, in particular cadets and special constables, when patrolling potentially dangerous areas of railway property. The examples given were walking along track sides, walking under overhead cables and accessing maintenance depots. A general question was raised about adequate training of British Transport police officers in such circumstances. Will the Under-Secretary nod, wink or respond positively—

Don Foster: Go on, wink.

Anne McIntosh: A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse, as I think the expression goes. Will the Under-Secretary put my mind at rest and state that the chief constable's report will relate not just to recruitment, which he satisfied me on, but to annual training, particularly of cadets, but also of longer serving officers?

David Jamieson: I am sure that the report will contain information about training. The hon. Lady raises an important point for all those who work on the railways, whether they are the police or those carrying out maintenance. There are considerable hazards and we would expect the training of officers to reflect that. I am sure that if the chief constable thought that it was necessary and formed a pertinent part of the work during the year, he would include it in his report.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 54 - Annual report by Authority

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: Obviously, a number of the issues that would have been uppermost in my mind have already been referred to by the Under-Secretary in his response to my comments on clause 53. In preparing for the Committee, I have become an even more avid reader of the web than I was hitherto. I am a little disappointed that the annual report to be published by the authority will effectively be a joint report—I think that he referred to that. Will he confirm that the chief constable's report is more likely to be dealt with as an internal document and that its contents will be subsumed into the authority's own report, which will be published on the web? Have I understood him correctly?
 The Under-Secretary did not respond to my question about clause 53—he went off on a tangent 
 in relation to the hon. Member for Bath. I specifically asked which parties would be recipients. Who will receive the report? To be more specific, will the annual report published under clause 54(3) go to the local partnerships, which may not be represented on the authority, but which would be interested? Will parish councils receive copies of the annual reports? That would be helpful. Perhaps the Under-Secretary could be a bit more specific about how the report is to be published. If any right hon. or hon. Member wished to log on to their own relevant British Transport police report, could they log on to the web in the usual way?

Don Foster: I was listening with great interest, as always, but I did not quite understand the hon. Lady's remark about right hon. and hon. Members logging on to their own British Transport police report. I assumed that there was only one British Transport police force and therefore only one such report.

Anne McIntosh: That relates to an interesting point made by the Under-Secretary, who said that the British Transport police will publish figures that will be broken down regionally. If the figures are broken down regionally, presumably we will have access to them in the context of a report. Who will do the breaking down? Will it be the British Transport police? On whose website will the figures, as broken down, be published? I am taking words out of the Under-Secretary's mouth. I am sure that Hansard will confirm that those are the words he used. I hope that the Under-Secretary will take the opportunity to confirm that a report on training, morale and recruitment in the police force will be issued.
 To return to my pet subject and that of the hon. Member for Bath, if we want to see a regional breakdown, at what stage after the report has been published will the British Transport police publish the regional breakdown? Will it be part of the annual report by the police authority or will it be done subsequently? Can the Under-Secretary say how soon it will be achieved? He gave an interesting figure: 81 serious football-related incidents occurred in a railway environment. Did those incidents occur in a geographic spread across the country or did they occur at specific points? 
 A copy of each report will be sent to the Secretary of State. Will that report be available to the Opposition or would we have to request a copy from the Library? I should also like the Minister to confirm the relationship between the report prepared by the chief constable and the report prepared by the police authority. Can he confirm that certain specified and named parties, including parish councils and the local partnerships to which he has referred, will receive the reports each year? Can he indicate how soon the regional figures broken down from the British Transport police figures will be available?

David Jamieson: Clause 54 requires the authority to produce and to publish annual reports about the policing of railways during the previous year. The clause is based on provisions in section 9 of the Police Act 1996 and the Police Act 1997. We discussed many of the issues during our consideration of the previous clause, but I shall pick up some of the points that have been raised.
 I am glad to hear that the hon. Lady is an avid reader of the web, and I am sure that she will spend many happy hours reading those reports. She asked about who will receive the report, and the answer is all those who require it. She asked whether parish councils will get it. If they, or other interested parties, ask for it they will get it. Generally, the report will be sent to the train-operating companies that fund the British Transport police, railway bodies, and crime and disorder partnerships such as those that my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone mentioned. It will also appear on the website. 
 The hon. Lady asked about the figures, and I am glad that the hon. Member for Bath helped to clarify the question of whether there will be one report or whether it will be regional. The one report could contain certain issues about which she may want to know. I am sure that she has read the British Transport police ''Statistical Bulletin 2001–02''. She will see on pages 13 to 16 a comprehensive breakdown of regional crimes. She will also see a breakdown of crimes by type and area. That type of statistical analysis is already available, and we expect it to continue. 
 The hon. Lady asked whether football offences are localised. Most football offences with which the British Transport police deal occur somewhere near football grounds, and I hope that I have clarified that matter.

Anne McIntosh: Clearly, the Under-Secretary is not an avid fan. He probably underestimates the ability of football fans to travel great distances and do considerable damage on trains. We shall debate clause 56 later, but I do not wish to pre-empt that discussion.
 Is the ''Statistical Bulletin 2001–2002'' an annual report and is it also available on the web? It will be interesting to find out whether it is published under existing rules. It is appropriate to send the report to the funders—the train-operating companies—who have already made a plea for greater representation on the new police authority. We have laboured that point strenuously during our Committee proceedings. It would also be appropriate for parish councils to be represented. When we debate the statistics later, we shall have further general comments to make.

David Jamieson: The current report is provided on the web.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 55 - Other reports to secretary of state

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Anne McIntosh: I noticed a curious subsection, which the Minister will no doubt explain already appears in existing legislation, but would it not be better to clarify more precisely what specified matters are referred to in subsection (2)? How often does the
 Under-Secretary envisage that the clause might be reverted to? One would imagine that the statistics and the annual reports would cover most eventualities.
 Will the Under-Secretary confirm that the power in subsection (1) relates to the new provisions in the 2001 Act? He referred to anti-terrorism preparations and greater security measures, but it might not be in the interest of the country or the British Transport police that they be widely published and debated. It would be helpful to know about the corresponding provisions in previous legislation and how they were used. Would such a report be published, or would it fall entirely under clause 55(4), requiring the Secretary of State's direction? If the power is already in force, how many times has it been invoked, or is it a wholly new power commensurate with the new responsibilities conferred on the British Transport police under the Bill and the 2001 Act? In what circumstances does the Under-Secretary imagine that it would not be in the Secretary of State's interest to publish the report?

David Jamieson: Clause 55 enables the Secretary of State to require the chief constable and the authority to submit reports on the performance of their functions. To answer one of the hon. Lady's questions, such a report may be published if the Secretary of State so chooses. This is consistent with the Home Secretary's powers under sections 43 and 44 of the Police Act 1996.
 The hon. Lady asked what sort of specified matters might apply to inquiries. Examples of what might be appropriate are parliamentary inquiries or questions from the hon. Lady for Bath—[Interruption.] I have spent too long reading on the web, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) has been amazingly quiet today, though he asked me a few questions. Also relevant might be crimes that took place at particular locations and any further information that the Secretary of State might need between the preparation of the annual reports. I understood the hon. Lady to ask how many such reports have been prepared. I do not have the figure to hand, but I believe that the Home Secretary requires them from time to time on specified important matters that cannot wait until the annual report is produced.

Anne McIntosh: I am not sure that we are any further forward in establishing what the specified matters might be, but this suggests to us diversionary tactics to keep the British Transport police fully occupied in any potential quiet period. Will the Under-Secretary ask his Department to write to me before the end of this week giving some examples in which the specified matters have led to a report by a local police authority under the Home Secretary's powers? That would enable us to understand why the clause is needed. We have already been told that British Transport police have to produce annual reports, so I hope that we will not take up too much of their time in asking them to produce interim reports that may not be entirely necessary.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 56 - statistics

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Don Foster: I have three questions. The first is question A, so we can get that out of the way. The second question relates to subsection (2), which requires information about offences committed, offenders and criminal proceedings. Could the Minister or the Under-Secretary—whoever is replying—assure me that the concerns that I have already expressed about the crucial need to gather information on the location of offences will be borne in mind when making requests to the British Transport police for the collection of that information?
 Will the Under-Secretary clarify the meaning of the phrase ''offences committed'', because there are significant problems with some of the current statistics? I used the examples of vandalism and trespass earlier. In 2001–02, the British Transport police reported approximately 30,000 offences of vandalism and trespass. Roughly speaking, half of those were vandalism and half were trespass. However, all the other statistical evidence shows—from the number of objects left on railway lines, the number of objects thrown at trains, and from independent research that asked schoolchildren whether they had been involved in such acts—that significantly more offences were committed than were reported by the British Transport police. 
 Will the Minister assure me that the information will be gathered and published in the wider context of data that has been collected by bodies other than the British Transport police? Will the Minister also take the opportunity to comment on the disturbing statistic that shows that only a small number of those recorded crimes of vandalism and trespass lead to prosecutions? For example, in the last year for which we have figures, there were 15,075 recorded offences of vandalism, although we know there were far more, but there were only 2,200 charges and summonses. There were 15,395 offences of trespass, even though we know that significantly more took place, yet there were only 903 summonses, not all of which led to convictions. There is clearly a need to examine why so few of those recorded offences led to summonses to court. 
 My third point relates to subsection (4). I imply nothing, but simply say that two things are important. When the Secretary of State receives the report from the chief constable, the information should be made public as quickly as possible. Can the Minister give us a clear assurance that there will be a speedy publication of that information? Can we also be assured that if the figures are to be summarised, as subsection (4) allows, the summary will be approved by the chief constable so that there can be no dubiety about the selection of the data? The Minister's smile shows why I said at the beginning that I was not implying anything. 
 Simply for the avoidance of doubt, the chief constable should be prepared to sign up to the summary that is being made public and on which many people outside the British Transport police may 
 base their actions. I am thinking of the train operating companies and Network Rail, which have specific duties in relation to some of the crimes that take place on the railways. They will clearly need to know that they can rely on the statistics. The hon. Member for Vale of York referred to her local parish council. It may wish to base some of its work on these statistics. It should therefore be information in which people have total confidence. 
 I have three basic questions. The first is question A. The second relates to subsection (2), about offences committed, the gathering of wider data and an assurance that we will look at the issue of the relationship between offences committed and the number of prosecution. The third question relates to subsection (4) and whether we will get quick publication and whether the summary will be one on which we can all rely.

Kelvin Hopkins: The hon. Member for Bath made some interesting remarks. Like other hon. Members, I saw those excellent documentaries about the British Transport police. I was concerned about the offences that were being committed. After expensive chases, sometimes involving helicopters and police cars, a small number of young men were rounded up, given a friendly talking to and then allowed to go away. Is that recorded and is the action taken effective?
 I do not assume that we should automatically come down heavily on trivial offences, but can my hon. Friend the Minister assure us that all these issues are considered carefully by the British Transport police and that the legislation provides for them to take effective action and to ensure that the statistics are properly recorded? This kind of behaviour goes on all the time. We want effective measures to be taken to reduce the level of crime on our railways.

Anne McIntosh: Working backwards, I see that under clause 56(4) the information received under the clause, or a summary of it, shall be laid before Parliament Will the Minister tell us whether the British Transport police ''Statistical Bulletin 2001–02'', which has been much vaunted this morning, is available for Committee members and where it is available? We are told that the intention is to make it available under the Bill, so presumably it is available under existing provisions.
 The hon. Member for Bath keeps banging on about—please pardon that expression—trespass. [Interruption.] I say that with the highest affection for the hon. Gentleman. I am happy to hold on to the Vale of York, and he is welcome to his constituency, at least until the next election. My understanding is that the offence of trespass does not pertain to Scottish law: the offence of trespass does not exist in Scotland. That point was put most vigorously to the Government in the responses from the Association of Scottish Police Superintendents and the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. They expressed the specific concern that a British Transport police constable attested in England and Wales would have jurisdiction in Scotland without the appropriate training or 
 knowledge of Scottish law. Is that reflected in the published statistics by noting the offences committed in England and Wales that are not deemed to be offences under Scottish law? Similarly, new offences may be created under Scots law—in hunting for example, although I am not sure whether the British Transport police would come across that—so do the statistics reflect that too? 
 There is a serious omission in subsection (2). Why is there no separate provision to make information available about victims? For the purposes of the Bill and all those who represent the victims of crime, it is important to collate evidence about victims annually so that comparisons can be formed. We have spoken at length during our debates on part 3 about the increasing vulnerability of women who use remote railway stations and lines at night and other times of the day when not many people are about, and I am sure that all Committee members received compelling evidence of the concerns of organisations such as the Royal National Institute of the Blind. I cannot understand why a separate category for victims is not justified, and it is remiss of the Government not to include that. Will they include such a category in the future? For several crimes against the person, particularly rape and sexual assaults, statistical evidence shows that the incidence of such offences is higher on trains or in railway stations than elsewhere. 
 Will the nature of the statistics requested by the Secretary of State under the clause allow hon. Members, railway users, train operating companies and the British Transport police to show whether the level of reported offences is up or down in any given reporting period, so that comparisons can be drawn between the different periods? From the point of view of policing, I would have thought that that was important. I have mentioned my concern that the offences may be recognised in England and Wales, but not in Scotland. 
 I wonder whether the statistics on offenders indicate an age breakdown or gender profile, such as a tendency for women to commit fewer offences because they do not watch as many football matches or are less violent, and whether there are repeat offenders on trains or railway facilities.

John Randall: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying and in the statistics that relate to the clause. Does she believe that subsection (2) would include successful prosecutions and the statistics to which she referred? Would they come under criminal proceedings and length of sentence?

Anne McIntosh: That is my next point. May I say what a pleasure it is to welcome back my hon. Friend after his worthwhile exercise of being nice to people living in other parts of Europe?

Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady explain why it was worth while?

Anne McIntosh: I do not want to be ruled out of order. My hon. Friend's absence from the Committee was obviously not worth while, but I am sure that he will prepare a report to share with us that will explain why his visit was worth while. It is always worth while sidling up to our neighbours.
 I speak as someone who did not develop an extensive criminal practice, but it is important to differentiate between offences committed and offences successfully prosecuted, as the hon. Member for Bath said. Scotland has always had the procurator fiscal service, which is responsible for bringing cases to court. The Minister might or might not find my point interesting, but I believe that there has been a sea change in England and Wales since the creation of the Crown Prosecution Service. Will he confirm that?

John Randall: My hon. Friend raises an interesting question, which I am not sure she will be able to answer. Presumably, if an offence is committed on a train travelling between England and Scotland, at what point does that offence come under Scottish law and at what point does it come under English law? Must the time that the offence was committed and the location of the train at that time be ascertained?

Anne McIntosh: I shall momentarily return to the point to which I hope the Minister will respond. The problem of moving jurisdiction is vexing in the context of the Bill. Out of respect for the hon. Member for Bath and his passion for the crime of trespass, I must say that it would be fruitless for an English police officer of the British Transport police to apprehend someone for committing a crime such as trespass in Scotland, where it is not recognised. I hope that the Minister heard the scenario that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge described, and that he will consider it.

Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Anne McIntosh: If the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my point, this is a cause of real concern. Do the current statistics reflect the difference between the number of offences committed and the number of offences that are successfully prosecuted? Is it envisaged that current practices will be continued? When the Minister finishes speaking to the clause, will he tell the Committee what changes, if any, have been made by the creation of the CPS?
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.